Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Daou v. Harris, 678 P.2d 934.

311 citing documents.

State v. Garza Rodriguez 791 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1990
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Superior Court 793 P.2d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
West Valley Camelback Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court 793 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
West Valley Camelback Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court 793 P.2d 1124 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
our supreme court held that the portion of former A.R.S.
St. Joseph's Hospital & Medical Center v. Superior Court 793 P.2d 1121 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
(“we presume that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing law.”); see also Arizona Press Club v. Arizona Bd.
Schenek v. Schenek 780 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Schenek v. Schenek 780 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Weaver v. Synthes, Ltd.(USA) 784 P.2d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Rule 60(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure
Pritchard v. State 778 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Pritchard v. State 778 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd. 772 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Lenze v. Synthes, Ltd. 772 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Rule 60(c), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure; , Old Pueblo Plastic Surgery, P.C.
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State Ex Rel. Corbin v. Marshall 778 P.2d 1325 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Sertich v. Moorman 767 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Sertich v. Moorman 767 P.2d 34 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. C.B. Johnson, Inc. 759 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. C.B. Johnson, Inc. 759 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Biliack v. Superior Court 754 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Biliack v. Superior Court 754 P.2d 1372 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
For the same reasons, , is not pertinent to the discovery issue presented in this proceeding.
State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Fowler 752 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the court held that reasonable time limits placed by the courts upon the exercise of substantive rights are procedural.
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Goglia v. Bodnar 749 P.2d 921 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Cline v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Cal. 742 P.2d 844 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
such as might be the act of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances.” 141 Ariz. at 631-632 , 688 P.2d at 639 -640 ( , ).
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Humana Hospital Desert Valley v. Superior Court 742 P.2d 1382 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
the court held that legislative enactments dealing with rules of procedure shall be deemed rules of court and shall remain in effect until modified or suspended by Arizona Supreme Court rules.
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 754 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1987
SCA Construction Supply v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 754 P.2d 1339 Ariz. 1987
Aries v. Palmer Johnson, Inc. 735 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
National Homes Corp. v. Totem Mobile Home Sales, Inc., , P.2d 907 (App.1983).
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Patton v. County of Mohave 741 P.2d 301 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Marine v. Allstate Insurance Co., 12 Ariz. *172 App. 229, 232
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Beal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 729 P.2d 318 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
MacConnell v. Maricopa County Medical Society 724 P.2d 591 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Begay v. City of Tucson 715 P.2d 758 Ariz. 1986
Garcia v. State 713 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
Garcia v. State 713 P.2d 347 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
State v. Pennington 717 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Pennington 717 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
It is presumed the legislature is aware of existing case law when it passes a statute, , and that it is aware of court decisions interpreting the language of the statute; and when it retains the language upon which those decisions are based, it approves the interpretations.
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Sax v. Superior Court 711 P.2d 657 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Hirsch v. National Van Lines, Inc.
Gurr v. Willcutt 707 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Gurr v. Willcutt 707 P.2d 979 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
“[T]he presumption is in favor of retention rather than divestiture of jurisdiction.”
Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Almarez v. Superior Court 704 P.2d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by